Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 8
| < February 7 | February 9 > |
|---|
February 8
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused template. Information already catered for in Template:Counties of Ireland Night of the Big Wind talk 22:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Premature nomination The template had already been nominated for discussion by me, the creator, at WikiProject Ireland talk. That is the proper forum for such a debate. Nominator should withdraw nomination until that forum achieves a concensus between the two competing templates. For this to go forward would only encourage forum shopping. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would be more interesting if author first seeks consensus before launching a template. But as compromize: userfication is also possible. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If you build it, they will comment. How can you build consensus for a non existant object? Build it, criticise it, delete it. Isn't that the usual order of things? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: This forum is called "Templates for discussion". It's for, er discussing templates. See also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or userfy. Also, explain concept of userspace to creator of template.Snappy (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Rationale Isn't it usual on Wiki to supply rationale for a decision? Concept of ratio decidendi needs to be explained to objector. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment When something serves no purpose, it is deemed useless rubbish and should be thrown out. Snappy (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Snappy, there is no need to be so hasty in nominating a template for deletion. Creating templates in userspace is not obvious to most users, and an embryonic template does no harm. If it is not developed within a reasonable period of time, then it can be TFD'd. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Except that I didn't TfD it, and you're right about some things not obvious though you'd think they would be. Snappy (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Snappy, there is no need to be so hasty in nominating a template for deletion. Creating templates in userspace is not obvious to most users, and an embryonic template does no harm. If it is not developed within a reasonable period of time, then it can be TFD'd. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment When something serves no purpose, it is deemed useless rubbish and should be thrown out. Snappy (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Rationale Isn't it usual on Wiki to supply rationale for a decision? Concept of ratio decidendi needs to be explained to objector. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or userfy. Unused template which has been created as a POV-fork of Template:Counties of Ireland. The POV is the creator's obsession with the fact that two of the 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland are subdivided for administrative purposes, even though one of them (County Tipperary is about to be administratively reunited [1]. This template loses the important geographical context of the provinces, in favour of emphasising the non-geographic issue of local government structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Clarification There is no POV issue. The categories into which the counties are placed are legitimate categories. No other editor has disputed this fact. Contrary views are about whether or not the province is more aesthetically pleasing. User BHG is obsessed with the Traditionalist view of the counties of Ireland (i.e. that there are 26 in the Republic). Ironically enough, this very template would highlight that this notion of 26 counties is just a traditionalist and irredentist worldview. The user wants to hide this POV worldview by deleting the template, thus perpetuating the irredentist myth. The WP:OR about the re-uniting of Tipperary should not sway the argument. It's no more than a political promise. We've heard lots of those in recent times. It might never happen. Wiki is not concerned with might be but with verifiable, legal realities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- LL, I have no desire to hide the difference between the traditional and administrative counties; I just don't believe that administrative status should be primary basis for grouping the articles on the geographical counties, particularly when the existing template clearly displays the administrative/non-admin distinction. Since your draft adds no new information, the choice here is essentially between grouping the counties by province or removing that grouping.
This is a navigational template, and it should assist the reader in the sorts of navigation they are most likely to do. The provinces are widely-used terms (see 4.8million ghits for Connacht, 6.1million ghits for Ulster, and 14.6million ghits for Leinster. Despite the very wide usage of the provinces as geographical regions of Ireland, you want to remove the provincial navigation from the template because you are obsessed with the notion that a particular set of "legal realities" are the only relevant realities. You categorise anything not based on local government law as part of an "irredentist myth", and that is straightforward POV-pushing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)- POV Cover-up response You might just as well add a layer called "Ancient Kingdoms of Ireland" and assign Meath, Westmeath, Longford and Kildare to the Kingdom of Midhe. It's more or less true. It has as much legal reality as the Province of Leinster. In fact, it might even have more legitimacy as Midhe was once one of the Fifths of Ireland (a fifth or cuige being the Irish word for an over-kingdom, Latinised as province). In other words, its purely cultural, not legal. It is more important for the casual reader to know what the current realities are, not what they may have been in some mythic time. Right now, the administrative counties of the Republic of Ireland cover the entire state, without any gaps (apart from the 5 cities). Anything else is "former". While they may be useful for genealogical rampling, they do not form any part of the state apparatus. The distinction between geographic and administrative is entirely spurious. All current administrative counties are geographic. They have a defined geographic area. Counties exist for the purposes of demarcating local government within a defined geographic area. They serve no other purpose. They are created and abolished with the passing whims of governments in fulfilling that purpose. The administrative counties of the Republic of Ireland, as identified in the template, clearly draw the readers eye to this reality. The others no longer fulfil their original purpose; they are former, non administrative, non judicial counties. Like the Kingdom of Midhe, they are of passing, antiquarian interest only, or shortly will be. It is not for us to decide what the counties of Ireland should be - that's for central government. It suffices for us to reflect those realities and not to perpetuate passing realities who day has come and gone. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- More pointless editorialising. The question of whether or not the provinces of Ireland have any legal significance or fulfil any purpose is not for Wikipedia editors to judge in constructing navigational mechanisms between stable geographical divisions which are widely-used. What we do judge is the navigational utility of various links, and the widespread use of the provinces (see Google searches above) shows that the provinces remain a current geographical topic of interest to our readers, unlike the ancient kingdoms which are of historical usage only (and in any case had fluid boundaries). If and when that changes, we can adjust our navigational systems, but it is quite wrong to deprive readers of access to popular and closely-related geographical topics because of your fixation on administrative geography to the exclusion of all others aspects of geography.
- You have pursued this fixation on administrative geography through the category system, where you repeatedly failed to win consensus for your desire to ensure that geographical entities are viewed solely through an administrative lens. Whether or not you have been persuaded by the outcome, please accept that there is not a consensus for your view. Otherwise, you risk sanctions for Tendentious editing. You have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Don't do as I do. Do as I say When I write long passages in refutation of an erroneous position, it's deemed to be editorialising; when BHG does it, it's to be treated as if has just newly descended from Mount Sinai. As all here are editors, what else would editors do except editorialise? And as for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think that BHG should also consider WP:ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack. It is of course quite erroneous to suggest that a legal context may be safely ignored when considering a issue; have you never looked at the IMOS history on Derry/Londonderry for example? If Google searches or popular usage was the only criterion, then we might have County Derry on Wiki, but we don't. As for stable mechanisms, the current one is quite stable. As for topic of interest to our readers, every county article contains the province in the lead and as a category in its own right. That's what wikilinks are for, doncha know. This template, by contrast, would offer a fresh and relevant way of organising the data that is not as clearly presented anywhere else; it has value add in other words. As for consensus, that's why we're here. You have no right to presume or prejudge the outcome of the discussion. I entertain no hope of converting BHG of course - her personal antipathies are well known at WikiProject Ireland and elsewhere. And spare us the coarse attempts at cowing other editors. Throwing around "WP:Tendentious" policies like snuff at a wake is just vulgar and if it was intended to scare me off it hasn't worked. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- LL, calm down and read what I actually wrote, rather than what you think I wrote.
- I did not suggest "that a legal context may be safely ignored". What I pointed out is that it is not the only context, which you want it to be. The existing template covers both perspectives (administrative and popular usage), but you want only one of them.
- WikiProject Ireland had a similar tussle with you over Category:County Dublin and Category:County Tipperary, where you set about depopulating the sub-categories out of process, and tagging them for deletion as empty. In the resulting Sept 2010 discussion at WT:IE I didn't take part; it was another editor who reminded you that your unilateral attempted one-man abolition of County Dublin categories in the encyclopaedia is flagrant vandalism without consensus. I joined in later in the year, when you were still at it, and reminded you that the geographical units do not vanish simply because they lose their administrative function. My illustration of that point is still relevant here:
Take a look at the Schedue to the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009, which defines the constituencies used for elections to Dáil Éireann. As you'll see, it relies on "former Rural districts", which were abolished in the 1930s. That works perfectly, because the former legal districts remain defined places. If you disagree, you are of course welcme to go the Supreme Court and argue that every Dáil election since the abolition of the rural districts has been invalid, because the constituencies have not had defined boundaries. Please do let us all know how you get on.
- More than a year later, you are still fixated on the phoney idea that current legal status is the only basis for a geographical entity, but nowhere have you found a consensus for that view. You have pursued this consistently-rejected view for about 18 months ago, and that is classic tendentious editing. Please drop the WP:STICK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreement Legal is not the only context. If it had been, then the current template would have excluded all the former counties. It does not do so. They are placed in their proper historical context for those with an antiquarian disposition. So then, we're back to the core of the matter. The current template does not abolish history. What is does do is to change the emphasis from a cultural one (provinces) to a legal one. I'll ignore the rest of the irrelevant bumph above for the sake of peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Laurel, thanks for the more measured tone, but we are not yet in agreement.
- You say that this new template of yours "changes the emphasis". That may be an a fair description of what it does with the counties, but it's a completely misleading phrase wrt the provinces -- your new template omits them entirely. That strips the counties of an important part of their cultural significance, and historical interest is only a small part of the significance of the provinces. In any case, I think it's a great pity that you deride historical interest. Why do you presume that history is of so little interest to our readers that it should be excluded? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreement Legal is not the only context. If it had been, then the current template would have excluded all the former counties. It does not do so. They are placed in their proper historical context for those with an antiquarian disposition. So then, we're back to the core of the matter. The current template does not abolish history. What is does do is to change the emphasis from a cultural one (provinces) to a legal one. I'll ignore the rest of the irrelevant bumph above for the sake of peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Don't do as I do. Do as I say When I write long passages in refutation of an erroneous position, it's deemed to be editorialising; when BHG does it, it's to be treated as if has just newly descended from Mount Sinai. As all here are editors, what else would editors do except editorialise? And as for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think that BHG should also consider WP:ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack. It is of course quite erroneous to suggest that a legal context may be safely ignored when considering a issue; have you never looked at the IMOS history on Derry/Londonderry for example? If Google searches or popular usage was the only criterion, then we might have County Derry on Wiki, but we don't. As for stable mechanisms, the current one is quite stable. As for topic of interest to our readers, every county article contains the province in the lead and as a category in its own right. That's what wikilinks are for, doncha know. This template, by contrast, would offer a fresh and relevant way of organising the data that is not as clearly presented anywhere else; it has value add in other words. As for consensus, that's why we're here. You have no right to presume or prejudge the outcome of the discussion. I entertain no hope of converting BHG of course - her personal antipathies are well known at WikiProject Ireland and elsewhere. And spare us the coarse attempts at cowing other editors. Throwing around "WP:Tendentious" policies like snuff at a wake is just vulgar and if it was intended to scare me off it hasn't worked. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- POV Cover-up response You might just as well add a layer called "Ancient Kingdoms of Ireland" and assign Meath, Westmeath, Longford and Kildare to the Kingdom of Midhe. It's more or less true. It has as much legal reality as the Province of Leinster. In fact, it might even have more legitimacy as Midhe was once one of the Fifths of Ireland (a fifth or cuige being the Irish word for an over-kingdom, Latinised as province). In other words, its purely cultural, not legal. It is more important for the casual reader to know what the current realities are, not what they may have been in some mythic time. Right now, the administrative counties of the Republic of Ireland cover the entire state, without any gaps (apart from the 5 cities). Anything else is "former". While they may be useful for genealogical rampling, they do not form any part of the state apparatus. The distinction between geographic and administrative is entirely spurious. All current administrative counties are geographic. They have a defined geographic area. Counties exist for the purposes of demarcating local government within a defined geographic area. They serve no other purpose. They are created and abolished with the passing whims of governments in fulfilling that purpose. The administrative counties of the Republic of Ireland, as identified in the template, clearly draw the readers eye to this reality. The others no longer fulfil their original purpose; they are former, non administrative, non judicial counties. Like the Kingdom of Midhe, they are of passing, antiquarian interest only, or shortly will be. It is not for us to decide what the counties of Ireland should be - that's for central government. It suffices for us to reflect those realities and not to perpetuate passing realities who day has come and gone. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- LL, I have no desire to hide the difference between the traditional and administrative counties; I just don't believe that administrative status should be primary basis for grouping the articles on the geographical counties, particularly when the existing template clearly displays the administrative/non-admin distinction. Since your draft adds no new information, the choice here is essentially between grouping the counties by province or removing that grouping.
- Clarification There is no POV issue. The categories into which the counties are placed are legitimate categories. No other editor has disputed this fact. Contrary views are about whether or not the province is more aesthetically pleasing. User BHG is obsessed with the Traditionalist view of the counties of Ireland (i.e. that there are 26 in the Republic). Ironically enough, this very template would highlight that this notion of 26 counties is just a traditionalist and irredentist worldview. The user wants to hide this POV worldview by deleting the template, thus perpetuating the irredentist myth. The WP:OR about the re-uniting of Tipperary should not sway the argument. It's no more than a political promise. We've heard lots of those in recent times. It might never happen. Wiki is not concerned with might be but with verifiable, legal realities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused template[2], appears to be redundant to (or have been superceded by) the broader {{SFBAtransit}}. Contra Costa County is one of 9 counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is the scope of {{SFBAtransit}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.